Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Technical, economic and environmental
analysis of energy production from municipal
solid waste
J.D. Murphy
a,
, E. McKeogh
b
a
Department of Building and Civil Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology, Cork, Ireland
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Received 8 September 2003; accepted 3 December 2003
Abstract
Four technologies are investigated which produce energy from municipal solid waste
(MSW): incineration, gasication, generation of biogas and utilisation in a combined heat
and power (CHP) plant, generation of biogas and conversion to transport fuel.
Typically the residual component of MSW (non-recyclable, non-organic) is incinerated
producing electricity at an eciency of about 20% and thermal product at an eciency of
about 55%. This is problematic in an Irish context where utilisation of thermal products is
not the norm. Gasication produces electricity at an eciency of about 34%; this would sug-
gest that gasication of the residual component of MSW is more advantageous than inciner-
ation where a market for thermal product does not exist. Gasication produces more
electricity than incineration, requires a smaller gate fee than incineration and when thermal
product is not utilised generates less greenhouse gas per kWh than incineration. Gasication
of MSW (a non-homogenous fuel) is, however, not proven at commercial scale.
Biogas may be generated by digesting the organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW). The pro-
duced biogas may be utilised for CHP production or for transport fuel production as
CH
4
-enriched biogas. When used to produce transport fuel some of the biogas is used in a
small CHP unit to meet electricity demand on site. This generates a surplus thermal product.
Both biogas technologies require signicantly less investment costs than the thermal con-
version technologies (incineration and gasication) and have smaller gate fees. Of the four
technologies investigated transport fuel production requires the least gate fee. A shortfall of
the transport fuel production technology is that only 50% of biogas is available for scrub-
bing to CH
4
-enriched biogas.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-21-4326745; fax: +353-21-4345244.

E-mail address: jdmurphy@cit.ie (J.D. Murphy).
0960-1481/$ - see front matter #2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.002
Keywords: MSW; Incineration; Gasication; Biogas; CHP; Gate fee; Greenhouse gas
1. Introduction
Ireland at present has a waste infrastructure, which is based on landll. It is over
capacity and would not comply with European regulations such as the Landll
Directive [1]. A number of waste strategies have been produced and are awaiting
implementation [2,3]. Thermal conversion and anaerobic digestion are components
of a number of the integrated waste management solutions proposed in the various
strategies [2,3]. This paper evaluates the technologies, which allow energy pro-
duction from various components of MSW. Typically the organic fraction may be
digested and the biogas may be utilised either for CHP or as a transport fuel. The
non-recycled non-organic fraction may be either incinerated or gasied; this
residual fraction is a non-homogenous fuel comprising of plastic, textiles, combust-
ible composites and metals. A technical, economic and environmental analysis of
these systems is undertaken. For this purpose a decision support software package
was written which models technical, economic and environmental conditions of
waste to energy systems.
2. MSW quantication and composition in Ireland
The Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled national waste
databases for the years 1995 and 1998 [4,5]. The population of Ireland [6] together
with the MSW generation is shown in Table 1. The overall increase in MSW aris-
ing per capita over the 3 years is of the order of 6.4% or about 2% per annum.
Table 2 highlights the various components of MSW. The EPAs surveys indicated
that packaging waste accounted for 26.3% of domestic MSW [5].
3. Incineration
A number of incinerators were visited or researched [712]. Technical and econ-
omic data were condensed to those outlined in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 1
MSW arising per capita per annum in Ireland [46]
1995 1998 % increase/(decrease)
Population (million) 3.57 3.74 4.8%
Domestic MSW arising (kg capita
1
pa) 371 326 (12%)
Commercial MSW arising (kg capita
1
pa) 134 202 50.7%
Total MSW arising (kg capita
1
pa)
a
517 550 6.4%
a
Value includes for street sweeping.
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1044
4. Gasication
The advantage of gasication over incineration is primarily the better electrical
generation eciency of the former. In large-scale systems combined cycle gas tur-
bines are used, which increase electrical eciency, but reduce the temperature of the
residual heat in the steam. Thus thermal energy production is signicantly lower
than that produced by incineration. Gasication is primarily concerned with elec-
tricity production. Table 5 outlines energy eciencies and parasitic energy demands
Table 2
Components of MSW landlled in Ireland during 1995 and 1998 [4,5]
Material Domestic Commercial Total
1995 1998 1995 1998 1995 1998
Organics 36% 32.9% 22% 15.1% 31.9% 26%
Paper 21% 19.5% 56% 58.6% 30.7% 34%
a
Plastic 10% 11.9% 9% 10.6% 10% 11.4%
Glass 5% 5.5% 5% 3.4% 5% 4.7%
Metals 3% 3.5% 1% 1.7% 2.7% 2.8%
Textiles 3% 2.9% 0.6% 2% 2%
Others
b
22% 23.8% 7% 9.9% 17.6% 19.1%
a
Paper fraction can be divided in two, wet fraction 13.26%, dry fraction 20.74%.
b
Others mainly consist of composites, ne elements such as ash, unclassied incombustibles and
unclassied combustibles.
Table 3
Energy eciencies and parasitic energy demand of incineration as used in the analysis
Average Maximum
Electricity
Electrical eciency obtained 18% 22%
Parasitic electrical demand 15%
Net electrical eciency % 15.3%
Thermal
Average thermal eciency obtained 50%
Parasitic thermal demand 15%
Net thermal eciency 42.5%
Table 4
Costs of incineration as used in analysis
Size ktpa Capital cost 4/tpa Running cost 4/t
British, Irish, American 120 560 42 (7.5%)
420 430 28 (6.5%)
Danish 40 650 48.8 (7.5%)
230 560 36.5 (6.5%)
Dutch 450 1030 67 (6.5%)
1045 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
used in this paper. Table 6 outlines the costs that will be used in this paper. These
data were generated from the technical reports on gasication of MSW [12,13].
5. Anaerobic digestion: biogas to CHP
Dry anaerobic fermentation at a solids content of 25 to 40% is patented as the
DRANCO process by Organic Waste Systems [1417]. A minimum of energy is
required to heat the solids due to the high dry solids content. Typically 10% of
heat production or 30 kWh/t is used for the production of steam used to raise the
temperature of the waste to 50
v
C [18]. The biogas is sent to a biogas engine; 30
40% of the electricity produced, about 75 kWh/t, is used in the process. The
electricity is used in pre-treatment of waste and feeding pumps [18]. Technical and
economic data have been summarised (Table 7).
Table 5
Energy eciencies and parasitic energy demand of gasication as used in this analysis
Electricity
Average electrical eciency obtained 34%
Parasitic electrical demand 20%
Net electrical eciency obtained 27.2%
Thermal
Average net thermal eciency obtained 30%
Parasitic thermal demand 20%
Net thermal eciency obtained 24%
Table 7
Budgetary costs (year 2003) and energy production for Dranco process (adapted from [18])
Parameter Unit Capacity (tpa)
5000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000
Capital cost 410
6
5 7 10 15 20
Capital cost 4/tpa 1000 700 400 300 200
Operating costs 4/t 40 30 25 20 15
Surface area m
2
3000 4000 7000 10,000 15,000
Electricity production kWh/t 225 225 225 225 225
Surplus of electricity kWh/t 140 140 145 150 150
Heat production kWh/t 300 300 300 300 300
Surplus of heat kWh/t 270 270 270 270 270
Table 6
Costs of gasication of MSW as used in this analysis
Capital cost 4/tpa Running Cost 4/t excluding capital cost and energy returns
4524/ t MSW pa 60 (11.5%)
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1046
6. Anaerobic digestion: biogas to transport fuel production
The generation of the biogas to transport fuel production model is based on the
biogas to CHP model with adaptations. The capital cost of the CHP plant must be
subtracted from the capital cost of the biogas plant (Table 7). The capital cost of a
small CHP plant (allowing for production of electricity as required to the power
plant) must be added, as must the capital cost of the scrubber. The scrubber
removes CO
2
, H
2
S and moisture and produces a CH
4
-enriched biogas (95 to 98%
CH
4
). Adaptations must also be made for running costs. Some of these costs are
outlined below.
. Capital cost of CHP plant: Fig. 1
. Operating cost of CHP plant: 40.01/kWh [21]
. Capital cost of scrubber: 47860/m
3
CH
4
-enriched biogas/h [22]
. Operating cost of scrubber: 40.03/m
3
CH
4
-enriched biogas [22].
Table 8 outlines the fuel eciency obtained by Kompogas [23] and Volvo [24]
operating on CH
4
-enriched biogas. It may be noted that the bi-fuel Volvo has 90%
of the eciency of the petrol model when operating on CH
4
-enriched biogas.
7. Energy value of residual component of MSW in Ireland
Applying an integrated waste management approach [2,3], the recyclable compo-
nent of MSW is recycled, the organic fraction is digested and the residual is incin-
erated. The energy value of the residual component of MSW (Table 9) is 13.26 GJ/t
(35.3% of MSW is incinerated in the model). This value will vary depending on
recycling rates and proportions of various waste streams. The value compares well
with those encountered in the Netherlands 13.5 GJ/t [9], Denmark 11.3 GJ/t [7]
and Japan 12.6 GJ/t [26]. Fig. 2 charts the relationship between energy value of
residual component of MSW and proportion of plastic included in incineration
Fig. 1. Typical installed costs for small-scale packaged CHP units, adapted from Refs. [19,20].
1047 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
fraction. Obviously plastic is a major source of the energy content so plastic recy-
cling will have a major eect on the feasibility of incineration.
Gasication requires MSW to be processed before gasication and any metal
removed. In the model 32.5% of MSW is gasied and the energy value is 14.34 GJ/t.
8. Technical aspects of model
The waste treatment technologies are applied to an urban population of one
million. Utilising data from the 1998 National Waste Database [5], the total waste
production equates to 550,000 t pa. The portions of the waste treated by
Table 8
Use of CH
4
-enriched biogas as car fuel
Quoted fact: 100 l of CH
4
-enriched biogas will fuel a car for 1 km [23]
Analysis
CH
4
-enriched biogas (98% CH
4
) has an energy value of 37 MJ/Nm
3
100 l CH
4
enriched biogas 3:7 MJ implies efficiency of 1 km=3:7 MJ 0:27 km=MJ
Volvo V70 Bi-fuel has an eciency of 0.27 km/MJ CH
4
-enriched biogas [24]
Volvo V70 Bi-fuel has an eciency of 9.8 km/l on petrol (32.23MJ/l), which equates to 0.3 km/MJ
Table 9
Energy value of residual component of MSW in Ireland (energy values from [25])
Component kg/t MSW % component incinerated Energy GJ/t GJ/t MSW
Plastic 114 100 32.564 3.712
Metals 28 100 0.698 0.020
Textiles 20 100 17.445 0.349
Others 191 100 3.141 0.600
Total 353 13.260 GJ/t residual MSW
a
a
4:681GJ=t=353 1000 13:26 GJ=t.
Fig. 2. Eect on energy value of residual component of MSW of proportion of plastic incinerated.
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1048
the energy conversion processes are outlined in Table 10. In the model wet paper
(13.26% of MSW) is digested with the organic fraction of MSW (26% of MSW).
Of the four technologies modelled gasication provided by far the best return
(Table 11) in terms of electrical product (1083 kWh/t MSW), and biogas to CHP
provided a relatively poor return (151 kWh/t MSW). The small CHP plant asso-
ciated with the biogas to transport fuel system utilises 51% of the biogas; parasitic
electricity and thermal demand are provided for. Surplus heat is available for
export. None of these technologies import energy.
9. Economic aspects of model
Many variables are inherent in the economic model. The investment costs and
the minimum gate fees for the base case are outlined in Table 12.
Table 10
Portions of total MSW treated by varying energy conversion processes
Proportion % Proportion % Quantity treated tpa from 1,000,000
person equivalents (PE)
Incineration 35.3 194,150
Gasication 32.5 178,750
Anaerobic digestion 39.26 39.26 215,930
Total 74.56 71.76
Table 11
Technical outputs for systems modelled treating a city with one million population
Technology Quantity treated
(tpa)
Exported electricity
per annum GWh
(kWh/t MSW)
Exported thermal
energy per annum
GWh
(kWh/t MSW)
CH
4
enriched
biogas m
3
pa
(vehicles served)
a
Incineration 194,150 109.411 (564) 303.919 (1565)
Gasication 178,750 193.696 (1083) 170.908 (956)
Biogas to CHP 215,930 32.619 (151) 55.916 (259)
Biogas to transport
fuel
215,930 25.233 (117) 7,693,908 (5466)
a
Cars travelling 20,000 kmpa at an equivalent of 40 mpg on petrol.
Table 12
Capital costs and gate fees for systems modelled treating a city with one million population with no
market for thermal power, r 5%, 40.07/kWh
e
, petrol 40.89/l, 25% tax on transport fuel
Technology Capital cost 4/t MSW gate fee
Incineration 4101,929,000 55
Gasication 493,665,000 40
Biogas to CHP 443,186,000 20
Biogas to transport fuel 447,522,000 11
1049 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
The eects of changing variables on the gate fees (Table 13) vary with the tech-
nology chosen. Gasication with the associated generation of electricity is most
sensitive to change in electricity rate. Gasication is an alternative to incineration,
which appears to be cheaper for all cases investigated. It must be borne in mind
that incineration is a mature technology, whereas gasication is not.
The gate fees for anaerobic digestion are cheaper than those for incineration or
gasication (except for gasication when electricity is sold in excess of 40.1/kWh).
It is not an alternative to either of these options. The alternative to using biogas
for CHP is the utilisation of biogas as a transport fuel. It would appear that the
transport fuel technology is cheaper in all cases.
10. Greenhouse gas production from thermal treatment of residual component
of MSW
Due to the varying proportions of components in the residual fraction of MSW,
it is dicult to establish precisely the energy value and accordingly it is dicult to
Table 13
Gate fees 4/t for treatment processes with base case one million person equivalent
Incineration Gasication Biogas CHP Biogas/transport
1,000,000 persons 55 40 20 11
300,000 persons 76 40 30 21
Thermal market 40.02/kWh 23 21 15 9
R 10%
a
74.5 59.5 27.5 19
50% tax on transport fuel 55 40 20 19
40.1/kWh 38 7.5 15.5 11
a
Increase in return on investment commensurate with private sector rather than public sector.
Table 14
Carbon dioxide production from incineration of MSW (g CO
2
/kWh)
CO
2
generated by combustion of 1 t of MSW
CO
2
to CO
2
1 mole carbon to 1 mole carbon dioxide
12 molecular weight to 44 molecular weight
273 kg Carbon to 1 t CO
2
1208 kg MSW to 1 t CO
2
1 t MSW to 828 kg CO
2
Production of electricity only
1 t MSW 13:26 GJ=t 3683 kWh 563kWh
e
@ 15:3% g net electrical efficiency
563 kWh
e
to 828 kg CO
2
1 kWh
e
to 1469 g CO
2
1 kWh
e
to 220 g CO
2
15% non-biogenic
Production of CHP
1 t MSW 13:26 GJ=t 3683 kWh 563 kWh
e
@ 15:3% ge and 1565 kWh
t
@ 42:5% gt
2128 kWh to 828 kg CO
2
1 kWh to 389 g CO
2
1 kWh to 58 g CO
2
15% non-biogenic
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1050
state a greenhouse gas emission per unit of electricity generated by combustion of
MSW. The Thermie Atlas Project Report [27] gave a value of 359 g CO
2
/kWh
e
.
Porteous [28] gave a value of 264 g CO
2
/kWh
e
based on a typical energy from
waste incineration (EfWI) plant producing 500 kWh
e
/t waste.
The average carbon content of MSW is 22.6% [29] of which 85% is of biological
origin [28]. Table 14 outlines generation of greenhouse gas emission from inciner-
ation. A gure of 220 g CO
2
/kWh
e
is generated for an incinerator producing elec-
tricity only, and 58 g CO
2
/kWh for an incinerator producing CHP. A similar
analysis produces the gure of 114 g CO
2
/kWh
e
for a gasier producing electricity
only, and 61 g CO
2
/kWh for a gasier producing CHP.
The do-nothing scenario for the residual component of MSW is landll. It is
postulated that the residual component of MSW (plastic, textiles, combustible
composites, metal) is slow to biodegrade and results in a minimum of landll gas
production. This is a conservative assumption.
11. Greenhouse gas production from biogas production
Table 15 outlines the greenhouse gas production with the biogas plant in oper-
ation at a scale of one million people.
The production of greenhouse gas with the plant not in operation (do-nothing
scenario) is used in calculating the net greenhouse gas production. Table 16 out-
lines the production of greenhouse gas in the do-nothing scenario. In Ireland in
1990 (base year Kyoto Protocol) the organic fraction of MSW was landlled and
Table 15
Production of greenhouse gas with biogas plant in place at a scale of one million people (data from
[30,31])
Source of CO
2
equivalent emission TCO
2
pa
Escape of biogas to atmosphere, 6.3% of total 16,616
Land application of digestate: emission of 10% of remaining biogas potential 5520
Combustion of biogas 52,268
Total 74,404
Table 16
Greenhouse gas production in do-nothing scenario (landll of OFMSW)
Organic fraction
of MSW tpa
Volatile
solids tpa
Landll gas emis-
sions (m
3
pa)
a
No aring of landll gas
CO
2
equivalent tpa
b
Flaring of landll gas
CO
2
equivalent t pa
c
215,930 53,335 34,667,562 318,942 67,948
a
Based on max destruction of volatiles of 65%, and production of 1 m
3
of biogas per kg volatile solids
destroyed.
b
9.19 kg CO
2
/m
3
biogas.
c
1.96 kg CO
2
/m
3
biogas.
1051 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
the produced landll gas was not ared. Flaring of the landll gas reduces green-
house gas emissions by a factor of 4.7 (Table 17). If in the do-nothing scenario,
landll gas is not ared then the biogas process has a negative net production of
greenhouse gas; the more biogas energy utilised the less greenhouse gas is emitted.
12. Greenhouse gas savings from displaced fossil fuel energy production
In examining greenhouse gas emissions, estimates are required for the green-
house gas production, the net greenhouse gas production (include for do-nothing
scenario) and the greenhouse gas savings (include for do-nothing scenario and sav-
ings from displaced fossil fuel powered energy).
Table 18 outlines the savings in greenhouse gas production used in the model
from displaced fossil fuel powered energy production.
Table 18
Savings in greenhouse gas due to displaced fossil fuel energy
Displaced energy CO
2
production
Electricity 734 g CO
2
/kWh
a
Thermal energy 240 g CO
2
/kWh
b
Petrol 2.13 kg CO
2
/l
a
Electricity Supply Board, year 2000 [32].
b
Natural gas.
Table 17
Eect of combustion on greenhouse gas production from landll gas/biogas
Combustion of biogas/landll gas
CH
4
2O
2
CO
2
2H
2
O
1 mole methane 1 mole carbon dioxide
16 molecular weight 44 molecular weight
1 kg CH
4
2.75 kg CO
2
Density of methane 0.714 kg/m
3
, biogas assumed to be 55.5% methane
1m
3
CH
4
1.96 kg CO
2
0.555 m
3
CH
4
1.089 kg CO
2
Density of carbon dioxide 1.96 kg/m
3
, biogas assumed to be 44.5% methane
1 m
3
CO
2
1.96 kg CO
2
0.445 m
3
CO
2
0.87 kg CO
2
Combustion of 1 m
3
biogas/landll gas 1.96 kg CO
2
Landll gas or biogas dissipated to atmosphere
55.5% CH
4
by volume, 0.555 (0.714 kg/m
3
) 0.396 kg CH
4
/m
3
Global warming potential of CH
4
is 21 times that of CO
2
8.32 kg CO
2
44.5% CO
2
by volume, 0.445 (1.96 kg/m
3
) 0.87 kg CO
2
Dissipation to atmosphere of 1 m
3
biogas/landll gas 9.19 kg CO
2
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1052
13. Greenhouse gas output of model
The biogas technologies oer a greatly increased reduction in net greenhouse gas
production compared with other technologies (Table 19). This is due to the large
emission of methane from uncontrolled landlls (the norm in Ireland in 1990, base
year for Kyoto Protocol) as outlined in Table 17. In eect, the net greenhouse gas
emission of the biogas technologies are beneting from the environmentally
unsound practice of uncontrolled landll gas emission to the atmosphere.
The thermal product is not of great signicance for the biogas technologies due
to the very high ratio of production of greenhouse gas in the do-nothing scenario
to savings in greenhouse gas in displaced thermal energy. The thermal product is
extremely signicant for incineration (majority of the energy output) and is also
signicant for gasication.
All technologies save greenhouse gas. The more energy is produced, the better
will be the overall greenhouse gas balance.
Flaring of landll gas in the do-nothing scenario has a very signicant eect on
the greenhouse gas production of the biogas technologies (Table 20). Greenhouse
gas production is less than for the thermal conversion processes, but as the energy
output for the biogas technologies are less than the thermal conversion technolo-
gies the greenhouse gas savings are also less.
On comparing the technologies analysed with energy derived from fossil fuel,
biogas is better than CO
2
neutral in the do-nothing scenario involving landll of
the organic fraction of MSW without aring of landll gas (Tables 21 and 22). It
may therefore be considered more green than wind power, for example.
Table 22 compares greenhouse production from a car powered by petrol operat-
ing at 40 mpg (7.06 l/100 km) with a car powered by biogas. The do-nothing scen-
ario with landll gas emission to the atmosphere yields a great benet to the
biogas-powered vehicles. From an Irish perspective this is valid. However it may be
Table 19
Summary of greenhouse gas production/savings by dierent technologies under the Do-Nothing Scen-
ario not involving aring of landll gas
Technology Net CO
2
production
tCO
2
pa
kg CO
2
/t MSW g CO
2
/kWh
(g CO
2
/km)
Total savings
tCO
2
pa
Incineration (electricity only) 24,109 124 220 56,198
Incineration CHP 24,109 124 58 129,138
Gasication (electricity only) 22,196 124 115 119,976
Gasication CHP 22,196 124 61 160,994
Biogas to electricity only 244,538 1132 7497 268,479
Biogas to CHP 244,538 1132 2762 281,899
Biogas to transport fuel (no thermal
market)
244,538 1132 (2236) 260,962
Biogas to transport fuel (thermal
market)
244,538 1132 (2236) 267,018
1053 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
stated that a waste problem is inating the benet of biogas powered vehicles.
Thus if the do-nothing scenario with aring of landll gas is considered then it
may be said that biogas powered vehicles generate of the order of 40% of the
greenhouse gas of petrol-powered vehicles.
14. Conclusions
A waste management infrastructure is about to be created in Ireland and it
needs to be done properly. Two proposed European Directives [33] relate to the
Table 20
Summary of greenhouse gas production/savings by biogas technologies under the do-nothing scenario
involving aring of landll gas
Technology Net CO
2
production
tCO
2
pa
kg CO
2
/t
organic fraction
of MSW
g CO
2
/kWh
(g CO
2
/km)
Total
savings
tCO
2
pa
Biogas to electricity only 6455 30 198 17,486
Biogas to CHP 6455 30 73 30,906
Biogas to transport fuel (no thermal market) 6455 30 (59) 9969
Biogas to transport fuel (thermal market) 6455 30 (59) 16,025
Table 21
Greenhouse gas production per unit of electrical power from dierent sources
Source of electricity g CO
2
/kWh
Coal 890
Oil 720
Natural gas 480
MSW incineration (electricity only) 220
Biogas (electricity only, aring of landll gas) 198
MSW gasication (electricity only) 115
Biogas to CHP (aring of landll gas) 73
MSW gasication (CHP) 61
MSW incineration (CHP) 58
Wind 0
Biogas to CHP (no aring of landll gas) 2762
Biogas to electricity (no aring of landll gas) 7479
Table 22
Greenhouse gas emissions from a car powered by various fuels
Fuel eciency g CO
2
/km
Petrol 40 mpg, 7.06 km/100 l, 14.16 km/l, 0.439 km/MJ 150
Biogas (no aring of landll gas) 0.395 km/MJ 59
Biogas (aring of landll gas) 0.395 km/MJ 2 236
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1054
requirement to reduce greenhouse gas production from the transport sector and to
initiate an alternative transport fuel technology. By converting biogas to CH
4
enri-
ched biogas and utilising as a transport fuel a waste to energy technology with a
low gate fee (411/t) is employed which will deal with 39% of MSW and will power
5466 cars (for a city with one million population). This may be used for vehicles
which return to base each day, local authority cars, taxis, company cars, or buses.
Incineration, as modelled here, would have the highest gate fee and the greatest
capital cost. A market for thermal product is extremely important in terms of gate
fee and greenhouse gas production. In the base case analysis the gate fee dropped
from 455/t to 423/t, where there was a market for the heat and the greenhouse gas
production dropped from 220 g CO
2
/kWh to 58 g CO
2
/kWh. In essence a thermal
market is essential to improve sustainability.
Gasication as modelled here was an improvement on incineration as for all
cases studied the gate fee was less. The CO
2
production/kWh was also less, except
for the case when the entire thermal product is utilised; when the greenhouse gas
production/kWh is of the same order. In theory, gasication is a more suitable
technology for Ireland where the market for thermal product is dicult, however
the constraint with gasication of MSW is the technology which is not yet proven
at commercial scale.
Biogas for CHP as modelled had a signicantly lower investment cost than
either incineration or gasication and a lower gate fee for all cases, except where
the return on electricity exceeded about 40.09/kWh. It should be noted that biogas
production is not an alternative to incineration or gasication because biogas is
produced from the organic fraction of MSW and thermal treatment is applied to
the non-organic, non-recyclable fraction. A market for thermal product would
reduce the gate fee by 25% (420/t to 415/t) in the base case analysis. A do-nothing
scenario of landlling the organic fraction of MSW and not aring the landll gas
is extremely important in reducing the net greenhouse gas production. In Ireland in
1990 (base year for Kyoto Protocol) virtually all MSW was landlled and the pro-
duced methane dissipated to the atmosphere resulting in signicant greenhouse gas
production. This generates negative production of greenhouse gas (7.5kg CO
2
/
kWh); the more biogas energy used, the less greenhouse gas produced. If the land-
ll gas was ared (and methane converted to CO
2
) in the do-nothing scenario then
the greenhouse gas production would be of the order of 198 g CO
2
/kWh.
The gate fee for biogas to transport fuel was lowest for all cases studied, except
when the return on electricity exceeded 40.098/kWh. At this return gasication
became the cheapest technology. A market for thermal product reduced the gate
fee by 42/t in the base case analysis. Again the do-nothing scenario was extremely
important in reducing the net greenhouse gas production. As modelled the non-
aring of landll gas generated negative production of greenhouse gas (2.24 kg
CO
2
/km); the greater the distance travelled in a biogas-powered car the less green-
house gas produced. If the landll gas is ared in the do-nothing scenario then the
greenhouse gas production was of the order of 59 g CO
2
/km about 40% that of a
petrol-powered car.
1055 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057
References
[1] European Communities. Council directive on the landll of waste, (99/31/EC), 1999.
[2] Fehily Timoney & Company (FTC). Waste strategy for South East Region, Fehily Timoney and
Company, Core House, Pouladu Road, Cork, Ireland, 1999.
[3] O Sullivan MC. Midlands waste management plan. M.C. O Sullivan and Company Ltd, Innishmore,
Ballincollig, County Cork, Ireland, 2000.
[4] EPA. National waste database report 1995, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, PO
Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Wexford, Ireland, 1996.
[5] EPA. National waste database report 1998, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, PO
Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Wexford, Ireland, 2000.
[6] Central Statistics Oce (CSO). Principal Statistics: Demography and Labour Force. Central Stat-
istics Oce, Mahon, Cork, Ireland, 2002. Available from http://www.cso.ie
[7] Herning Kommunale Vaerker (HKV). Knudmosevaerket brochure on Incinerator, EnergiGruppen
Jylland A/S Dalgas, Alle 3 DK-7400 Herning, 2000. Email Info@egiylland.dk, website http://
www.egiylland.dk
[8] Vestkraft Mabjergvaerket brochure, Vestkraft 2 DK-6700 Esbjerg, website http://www.elsam.com
[9] NV Huisvuilcentrale N-H. Sustainable energy and clean products from waste, Jadestraat 1, 1812
RD, Alkmaar, PO Box 9199, 1800 GD Alkmaar, The Netherlands, July 1997.
[10] Caddet technical brochure No. 12. SELCHP energy from waste incineration plant in London, 2000.
Available from www.caddet-re.org
[11] Cadett Technical Brochure No. 137. New Energy-from-Waste Plant in Dundee Scotland, 2000.
Available from www.caddet-re.org
[12] NREL. Evaluation of gasication and novel processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste.
US Department of Energys National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1996.
[13] IEA Bioenergy, IEA CADDET. Advanced Thermal Conversion Technologies for Energy from
Solid Waste, A Joint report of the IEA Bioenergy Programme and the IEA CADDET Renewable
Energy Technologies Programme. Published by IEA CADDET Centre for Renewable Energy,
ETSU, Harwell, Oxfordshire, UK, 1998.
[14] De Baere L, Van Meenen P, Deboosere S. Anaerobic fermentation of refuse. Resourc Conserv
1987;14:295308 Elsevier Science Publications BV, Amsterdam.
[15] De Wilde B, Six W, De Baere L. (1989). Dry anaerobic conversion of source separated household
waste to biogas and humotex, 42 Informationsgesprach des ANS Vergarung fester organischer
Abfalle Moglichkeiten und Grezen der Biogasgewinnung. Basel, 79 November 1989.
[16] Organic Waste Systems (OWS). The DRANCO process. OWS NV, Organic Waste Systems, DoK
Noord 4, 9000, Gent, Belgium.
[17] Six W, De Baere L. Dry anaerobic composting of various organic wastes. Fifth international Sym-
posium on Anaerobic Digestion, Bologna, Italy, May 2226. 1988.
[18] Six W. Project engineer with organic waste systems, personal communication, August 2001.
[19] CIBSE. Small scale combined heat and power for buildings, CIBSE Members CD-ROM, GPG 176,
2000.
[20] Jenbacher brochure. Cogeneration with gas engines, 2002. Available from www.Jenbacher.com
[21] Kottner M. Practical experience with agricultural biogas plants. In: Anaerobic digestion: making
energy and solving modern waste problems. Ortenblad H, editor. Herning Municipal Utilities,
AD-Nett Report, 2000.
[22] Murphy JD, McCarthy K. Account of visit to Bromma sludge biogas plant, 7 February 2003.
Department of Building and Civil Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology, Cork, Ireland,
Unpublished, 2003.
[23] Caddet technical brochure No.18. Electricity and heat from source-separated organic waste.
Available from www.caddet-re.org, August 13th 2001.
[24] Volvo. Volvo bi-fuel brochure, MS/PV 527-1631-03. VB/PV 42-03, Swedish, Volvo Car Corpor-
ation, 2002.
[25] Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil SA. Integrated solid waste management. McGraw Hill; 1993.
J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057 1056
[26] Cadett Technical Brochure No. 33, Refuse to Energy Plant with improved utilisation of municipal
waste. Available from www.caddet-re.org, August 13th 2001.
[27] Renewable Energy Information Oce (REIO). Planning update, No. 4. Irish Energy Centre,
Published by REIO, Shinagh House, Bandon, Cork, Ireland, 2000.
[28] Porteous A. Energy from waste incineration: a state of the art emissions review with an emphasis
on public acceptability. Appl Energ 2001;70:15767 Elsevier.
[29] Porteous A. Dictionary of environmental science and technology. 3rd ed. John Wiley, August 2000.
[30] Hobson J, Palfrey R, Sivil D, Palfrey E, Day M. Control measures to limit methane emissions from
sewage and sludge treatment and disposal, Report to The Department of the Environment, UK,
October 1996.
[31] OECD. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. Published by the Organisation of
Economic Community and Development, 1991.
[32] Gillingan N. Keeping the power owing. The Engineers Journal 2002;56(March (2)).
[33] Available in December 2001from http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/en/
whats_new_en.html and http://www.engva.org.
1057 J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 10431057